Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I don't think the take-off difficulty is realistic.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • grafspee
    replied
    Watch this, 1 take off 2 points of view.
    From outside take off looks smooth, but once you jump in cockpit you will see how much this bf-109 drifted to the left during take off it got nasty left swing just before lift off, and this pilot used i think 1.2ATA
    Start watching from 1:30 is you don't want to look at bf-109 start up.

    If you watch closely couple of moments after tail lift of what is happening with the plane, DCS bf109 act very similar to this real one.
    Last edited 09-26-2020, 07:15 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • grafspee
    replied
    Originally posted by amazingme View Post
    You're contradicting yourself.. and the rudder is large enough for yawing the plane, even at low speeds, but in reality.

    Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk
    I'm not, at high speeds small rudder is no problem, but long tail change plane behavior compare to one with short tail and bigger rudder surface..

    Leave a comment:


  • amazingme
    replied
    Originally posted by grafspee View Post
    Bf-109 well known feature is that tail vertical stabilizer is very small compare to other planes but the tail is significant longer.

    This makes two things,

    First it is hard to control at low speeds

    Second because of the long tail rudder is quite effective at Yawing plane left right so pilot can easy bring aim to make a shoot even if nose is quite off the target left/right
    You're contradicting yourself.. and the rudder is large enough for yawing the plane, even at low speeds, but in reality.

    Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • grafspee
    replied
    Bf-109 well known feature is that tail vertical stabilizer is very small compare to other planes but the tail is significant longer.
    This makes two things,
    First it is hard to control at low speeds
    Second because of the long tail rudder is quite effective at Yawing plane left right so pilot can easy bring aim to make a shoot even if nose is quite off the target left/right

    Leave a comment:


  • Yo-Yo
    replied
    Originally posted by sandcat View Post
    Would a BF-109K have more torque than a dora or spitfire? I can easily counter the torque in the dora and spitfire. However in the BF-109 full stick and rudder can't stop it from drifting off to the left.
    https://youtu.be/pvKs9VLUcCg?t=939

    https://youtu.be/pvKs9VLUcCg?t=1404

    https://youtu.be/OaZ6lkqUul4
    Last edited 09-17-2020, 11:17 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aluminum Donkey
    replied
    The ground handling of these aircraft was so hairy it was damn near legendary.

    Tiny, lightweight plane. Whopping powerful engine, and huge propeller. Narrow-track, taildragger landing gear that gives the ground handling properties of a three-legged ass that's had a few too many beers. Oh yeah, you can't see anything in front of you on the ground, either.

    Many young pilots were killed just trying to learn how to take off and land these metal monsters. World War 2 wasn't all guts and glory, a good portion of fatalities were attributed to young people just trying to learn to fly an airplane type that no young inexperienced pilot has any business trying to fly in any situation except a desperate, all-out war.

    Never flown before? Hell, never seen an airplane before? No problem, here's a little introductory course, and now we'll put you in the seat of an 1800 horsepower fighter. Good luck!

    AD

    Leave a comment:


  • msalama
    replied
    behaves differently for every player with every control setup
    Indeed. This is more of a factor than people realize, or are willing to admit. And hence all the whining about how everything is incorrectly modelled. Seen this in all the CFSs I've ever flown, and both sides are equally guilty of it.
    Last edited 09-15-2020, 08:19 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • zcrazyx
    replied
    All i will say is that engine torque is defo a factor in most warbirds, most warbirds also dont take off from full power static when they have a tail wheel due to said torque effect, when the tail is down it is less effective, true however there are various techniques for this, a modern spitfire pilot managed to crash one after he used too much brake with too high power on take off and nosed over, while a lot of pilots tend to land with the tail slightly low of level for a wheeler, yet the manual states 3 pointers if i recall correct.

    as for aliaron being inneffective sure, it might be less effective then at higher speeds however i can say from experiance that you can still wing scrape by using aliarons, i had a rearwin up on one wheel at 40mph due to wind picking up the wing, it took near to full aliaron to counter it.

    Another point is the method for taking off and landing, short take offs such as in a mustang are from a 3 point attitude and i believe it describes this in the manual, it also states to be cautious due to the torque and less effective controls. the second way is by raising the tail and then letting the aircraft fly off the runway which from what i have seen is the prefered way of taking most taildraggers off. the sketch part of this is the transition between tail down and tail up as the controls will require changes and as such over correction can occure.

    another point about using high power on take offs is engine cooling, it is very easy too cook a merlin or db if you have the radiators closed while at high power, a 109 pilot damaged their engine and ended up in a field due to having closed radiators and overshooting the runway.

    as others have pointed out with the spitfire thread this pandaros box, every aircraft behaves differently for every player with every control setup. i would say its generally about right, he said he hasnt flown it in a while, he might have control reset, nostalgic memory or something else.

    all i'd suggest is lock the tailwheel, stick back, gradual increase to 1.4 ata, use a small amount of brake in jabs at lower speed the same as you would the rudder, then as the rudder becomes more effective, stick forwards, use more rudder to counter the swing, increase power and your off once you get the speed.

    Leave a comment:


  • philstyle
    replied
    Originally posted by amazingme View Post
    Too bad he doesn't mention the exact speed.. as it's MUCH lower than in DCS and you intentionally missed the part with "the amount of effort needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right" and if you read it further you'll see that "When you maneuver ABOVE 500km/h, two hands are required for a MORE aggressive performance.." whereas in DCS the stick forces are implemented as low as 300km/h!!!.
    Or.. "Above 550km/h, one peculiarity is a SLIGHT NOSE-DOWN trim change as you accelerate. This means that when you run in for an airshow above 500km/h, the airplane has a SLIGHT tucking sensation - a sort of desire to get DOWN to ground level." And a lot more like these..
    Tell me where and when do you notice any of these in DCS.. since you brought it up.

    He was talking about the takeoff.. you know.. the bit that this thread is about. All that 500kph flight business is for another thread.
    Leave the goalposts where they are.

    Leave a comment:


  • amazingme
    replied
    Originally posted by john4pap View Post
    This thread echoes the discussions disputing the Spitfire's realism on take off on the grounds of its difficulty. So, before this escalates into something nasty, as heralded by the first reply to this thread, should smooth-takeoff-disbelievers consider that if some of us can do it, then it is possible?

    What I can add to this is that the statement about opening the throttle gently is a little inaccurate. You have to open it dead slowly so engine torque does not throw you hard to the left before you gain any rudder authority. If you do that, and if you have your tailwheel locked, it's much easier than the spitfire. No toe brakes, no dancing on the pedals. Easy

    Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk
    Yeah.. but it doesn't match reality..

    Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • john4pap
    replied
    This thread echoes the discussions disputing the Spitfire's realism on take off on the grounds of its difficulty. So, before this escalates into something nasty, as heralded by the first reply to this thread, should smooth-takeoff-disbelievers consider that if some of us can do it, then it is possible?

    What I can add to this is that the statement about opening the throttle gently is a little inaccurate. You have to open it dead slowly so engine torque does not throw you hard to the left before you gain any rudder authority. If you do that, and if you have your tailwheel locked, it's much easier than the spitfire. No toe brakes, no dancing on the pedals. Easy

    Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • amazingme
    replied
    Originally posted by DD_Fenrir View Post
    Source? Conditions? Your reaching. Again.



    No intentional about it. We are discussing takeoff characteristics. In any case you are using an unquantified subjective opinion to support an argument based on your own subjective interpretation. There is no data to compare, ergo it is irrelevant.



    Let's leave that for an appropriate topic, hmmm?



    Again, this is not the topic for it, and in any case it could be there is a difference between a G-10 and a K-4 that accounts for this. The MW-50 tank springs to mind for one. I highly doubt that modern restorations fly with this filled. You will have to ask Yo-Yo.

    I used the G-10 a stand-in in the case of the directional characteristics on takeoff as the vertical tail format is virtually unchanged and horsepower, wing planform and undercarriage geometry are very similar for the two aircraft, and a far closer match than the earlier G variants referenced in your videos.
    Extract from an interview with Franz Stigler who flew the real deal back then: "Fanz Stigler liked the 109G as well and also enjoyed flying the K-4. The K-4, he said was very much like the G yet could leave all other fighters behind in climb. In control feel he said the K felt identical to the G. He described on many occasions where they would just bank away from the fighters and climb away from them"

    Leave a comment:


  • Art-J
    replied
    Originally posted by amazingme View Post
    The funny thing is that the OP compared the take off in DCS with the real thing and you guys jumped in to give advice on how to do it in DCS..

    Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk
    Nothing funny about that. I don't know how accurate / inaccurate FM is, nor do I care all that much because:
    a) we can't mod it anyway;
    b) without numerical sources the FM won't be revised by the devs;
    c) every sim devs claim their interpretation of 109 is the best one, while they all fly quite different. Go figure. The only thing to do then is learn how the 109 handles in every sim and adjust your technigue accordingly. Hence our tips and advices.

    Leave a comment:


  • cromhunt
    replied
    To "Sandcat"
    Check your private messages please
    Last edited 09-14-2020, 10:34 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DD_Fenrir
    replied
    Originally posted by amazingme View Post
    Too bad he doesn't mention the exact speed.. as it's MUCH lower than in DCS
    Source? Conditions? Your reaching. Again.

    Originally posted by amazingme View Post
    and you intentionally missed the part with "the amount of effort needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right"
    No intentional about it. We are discussing takeoff characteristics. In any case you are using an unquantified subjective opinion to support an argument based on your own subjective interpretation. There is no data to compare, ergo it is irrelevant.

    Originally posted by amazingme View Post
    and if you read it further you'll see that "When you maneuver ABOVE 500km/h, two hands are required for a MORE aggressive performance.." whereas in DCS the stick forces are implemented as low as 300km/h!!!.
    Let's leave that for an appropriate topic, hmmm?

    Originally posted by amazingme View Post
    Or.. "Above 550km/h, one peculiarity is a SLIGHT NOSE-DOWN trim change as you accelerate. This means that when you run in for an airshow above 500km/h, the airplane has a SLIGHT tucking sensation - a sort of desire to get DOWN to ground level." And a lot more like these..
    Tell me where and when do you notice any of these in DCS.. since you brought it up.
    Again, this is not the topic for it, and in any case it could be there is a difference between a G-10 and a K-4 that accounts for this. The MW-50 tank springs to mind for one. I highly doubt that modern restorations fly with this filled. You will have to ask Yo-Yo.

    I used the G-10 a stand-in in the case of the directional characteristics on takeoff as the vertical tail format is virtually unchanged and horsepower, wing planform and undercarriage geometry are very similar for the two aircraft, and a far closer match than the earlier G variants referenced in your videos.
    Last edited 09-14-2020, 05:45 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • amazingme
    replied
    Originally posted by DD_Fenrir View Post
    Enough to get on and off the ground without inducing the "FM bugged" hysteria you seem to suffer with.

    Clue:

    "Tail is coming up now, and the rudder is becoming effective."

    Kind of insinuates that it wasn't very effective beforehand, n'est pas?

    As for roll rate, seems to marry pretty much with what most contemporary pilots describe; faster then the Mustang, similar to the Spit. I get good roll rates (particularly to the left) as long as I coordinate with a good bootful of rudder. This correlates to descriptions by by every pilots notes I have ever referenced regards flying the 109, of any variant - that is that good 109 flying requires good rudder work.

    This indicates a marginal stability around the normal axis. Which further indicates that Willy made the vertical surfaces as small as he dared and only increased them as a last resort and to the smallest possible area he could get away with.
    Too bad he doesn't mention the exact speed.. as it's MUCH lower than in DCS and you intentionally missed the part with "the amount of effort needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right" and if you read it further you'll see that "When you maneuver ABOVE 500km/h, two hands are required for a MORE aggressive performance.." whereas in DCS the stick forces are implemented as low as 300km/h!!!.
    Or.. "Above 550km/h, one peculiarity is a SLIGHT NOSE-DOWN trim change as you accelerate. This means that when you run in for an airshow above 500km/h, the airplane has a SLIGHT tucking sensation - a sort of desire to get DOWN to ground level." And a lot more like these..
    Tell me where and when do you notice any of these in DCS.. since you brought it up.

    Leave a comment:


  • DD_Fenrir
    replied
    Originally posted by amazingme View Post

    It seems that you have NO experience whatsoever in flying the 109 in

    DCS.
    Enough to get on and off the ground without inducing the "FM bugged" hysteria you seem to suffer with.

    Clue:

    "Tail is coming up now, and the rudder is becoming effective."

    Kind of insinuates that it wasn't very effective beforehand, n'est pas?

    As for roll rate, seems to marry pretty much with what most contemporary pilots describe; faster then the Mustang, similar to the Spit. I get good roll rates (particularly to the left) as long as I coordinate with a good bootful of rudder. This correlates to descriptions by by every pilots notes I have ever referenced regards flying the 109, of any variant - that is that good 109 flying requires good rudder work.

    This indicates a marginal stability around the normal axis. Which further indicates that Willy made the vertical surfaces as small as he dared and only increased them as a last resort and to the smallest possible area he could get away with.
    Last edited 09-14-2020, 03:41 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DD_Fenrir
    replied
    And... the Bf 109 is not a Spitfire.

    Control surface areas = different
    Vertical tail area = different
    Control surface moment arms = different
    Propellors = different
    Engine output = different
    Wing area = different
    Wing planform = different
    Tail wheel geometry = different
    Fuselage geometry = different

    Ergo,

    Reaction to torque forces on take-off = .......

    Hazard a guess.

    Leave a comment:


  • sandcat
    replied
    Originally posted by cromhunt View Post
    A video is better than any explanation i suppose
    Take a look at this one and find a bug please?

    There is no tricks or cheat it's the game pure
    I think you have to search on an other way to find a solution.
    the game is OK.

    PS: if i'm able to do that ,why somebody else could not do same?
    I think this is some of the best DCS flying I have seen, you really have masterful control on take-off.

    However, I think that the minimum proficiency required to take off in a 109 is too high. Specifically because it does not allow the pilot to catch mistakes in a take off roll and correct for them. And I think that is the buggy part. In the Dora and Spitfire, it is possible with some rudder and some stick to regain control of the direction. While with the BF109, as you can see in the video I posted, as soon as it drifts left a bit, full rudder and full stick can not correct it. Also the control surfaces appear to have less authority and require more speed for authority than the spitfire. (Spitfire gets rudder at 4km/h, BF at 28km/h)

    Leave a comment:


  • amazingme
    replied
    Originally posted by DD_Fenrir View Post
    The closest exmaple to a Bf 109K that is currently airworthy is actually a HA-1112-M1L re-engined with a DB601.

    From here: http://goodall.com.au/warbirds-direc...serschmitt.pdf



    and here is Mark Hannah's description of the takeoff : http://www.eaf51.org/newweb/Document...%20109_ENG.pdf)
    We all know them and it's exactly.. how it ISN'T in DCS.. for example:

    "Power gently up and keep it coming smoothly up to 40 inches (1.3ATA?). Keep the tail down initially, and keep it straight by feel rather than any positive technique. Tail is coming up now, and the rudder is becoming effective. Unconscious corrections to the rudder are happening all the time. It's incredibly entertaining to watch the 109 lift off the ground; the rudder literally flashes around!"

    Or.. "The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 400km/h, and the amount of effort needed to produce the relevant noise movement seems exactly right".

    And so on.. a lot more.. It seems that you have NO experience whatsoever in flying the 109 in DCS.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X